[jaymoynihan]

I am interested in what is(are) the optical "weakness(es)" of each:

Leupold 8x42 HD Gold Ring
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD
Zeiss 7x42 FL

Thanks

[308CAL]

i would add meopta

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by jaymoynihan

I am interested in what is(are) the optical "weakness(es)" of each:

Leupold 8x42 HD Gold Ring
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD
Zeiss 7x42 FL

Thanks

I would rank these in this order:

1) Zeiss FL(Best CA control, Little smaller sweet spot, Best optics of the bunch, Sharpest, Brightest)
2) Leica HD(Great Contrast, Bigger Sweet Spot, Real close to the Zeiss)
3) Leupold (Not in the same league as the first two)

Dennis

[Fireform]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I would rank these in this order:

1) Zeiss FL(Best CA control, Little smaller sweet spot, Best optics of the bunch, Sharpest, Brightest)
2) Leica HD(Great Contrast, Bigger Sweet Spot, Real close to the Zeiss)
3) Leupold (Not in the same league as the first two)

Dennis

I have to wonder--have you even looked through a pair of Leupold GRs? Because your statement there makes me shake my head. The only issue with the GRs is that they are heavier than the other bins in their class, and depending on how you intend to use them that may or may not be a detriment. If I buy another 10 glass, it will be a GR exactly because the extra mass makes them easier to steady and more comfortable for extended viewing. In terms of image quality, the GRs are alpha class, period. Beautiful sharpness, contrast and color rendition, and a very fat sweet spot. Focusing and handling are excellent, and they have the best warranty in the industry bar none.

[macs]

Originally Posted by jaymoynihan

I am interested in what is(are) the optical "weakness(es)" of each:

Leupold 8x42 HD Gold Ring
Leica Ultravid 8x42 HD
Zeiss 7x42 FL

Thanks

I would also add to your short list Kowa 8.5x44 XD as it has ED glass and CA suppresion is, IMO, better than in Zeiss and Leica.

[FrankD]

Wow, I have to readily admit I am surprised by some of the responses. For what it is worth I would rank them in the manner that Dennis did (no offense intended Fireform). I have had the opportunity to sample three of the Golden Ring HD binoculars...all in 8x42. I continue to be genuinely amazed that Better View Desired has them rated at Reference Standard level. They are certainly above average binoculars optically and I don't have any issue with the weight (heck, two of my current regular use bins weigh over 35 ounces). When I looked through those units though I always felt the image was just a bit "softer" than I would have expected to see from an HD/ED/FL binocular. It was that single factor that deterred me from purchasing them on the spot. I thought they were well made and I liked the IPD locking feature but the apparent sharpness just did not seem at the level I had expected. Maybe the FLs just spoiled me. I honestly do not know.

macs,

Your comment also caught me off guard. I finally had the opportunity to try both the 8.5x44 and the 8x33 Genesis models at a recent Optics Day here locally. They were bright, sharp, had excellent color representation and had very little edge distortion. Just like the GRs, I did not mind the extra weight of the larger model but actually found it beneficial in getting a steady image. In the limited environment that I had to sample them I could not really check for CA but if they are better than the FLs then that really says something to me about them. I have found one or two models that were comparable but haven't found one that bettered them.

I would also suggest checking out the Meopta. It is certainly worth a look but I would not necessarily rank it any higher than the non-ED/FL versions of the others.

[jgraider]

I've spent extensive time behind a pair of Leupy GR's in 10x, and calling them "alpha's, in the same class as Zeiss, Leica, and Swaro" is a bit of a stretch IMO. They are not quite on par with my trinovids and old SLC's, and a fair bit behind the view on my Zen ED 2's and the neighbor's EL's. Good glass, yes, alpha glass not hardly. They do have great customer service, but the warranty as professed by fireform is a stretch, as the warranty is not better than Zeiss (transferrable also), Bushnell Elite (lifetime transferrable), and few others. The Leupold cool aid drinkers all say the same thing, but the facts tell another.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by Fireform

I have to wonder--have you even looked through a pair of Leupold GRs? Because your statement there makes me shake my head. The only issue with the GRs is that they are heavier than the other bins in their class, and depending on how you intend to use them that may or may not be a detriment. If I buy another 10 glass, it will be a GR exactly because the extra mass makes them easier to steady and more comfortable for extended viewing. In terms of image quality, the GRs are alpha class, period. Beautiful sharpness, contrast and color rendition, and a very fat sweet spot. Focusing and handling are excellent, and they have the best warranty in the industry bar none.

Yes, I have compared them closely and they are definitely not in the same optical class as the other two. Nice binoculars but not alpha class.

Dennis

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Wow, I have to readily admit I am surprised by some of the responses. For what it is worth I would rank them in the manner that Dennis did (no offense intended Fireform). I have had the opportunity to sample three of the Golden Ring HD binoculars...all in 8x42. I continue to be genuinely amazed that Better View Desired has them rated at Reference Standard level. They are certainly above average binoculars optically and I don't have any issue with the weight (heck, two of my current regular use bins weigh over 35 ounces). When I looked through those units though I always felt the image was just a bit "softer" than I would have expected to see from an HD/ED/FL binocular. It was that single factor that deterred me from purchasing them on the spot. I thought they were well made and I liked the IPD locking feature but the apparent sharpness just did not seem at the level I had expected. Maybe the FLs just spoiled me. I honestly do not know.

macs,

Your comment also caught me off guard. I finally had the opportunity to try both the 8.5x44 and the 8x33 Genesis models at a recent Optics Day here locally. They were bright, sharp, had excellent color representation and had very little edge distortion. Just like the GRs, I did not mind the extra weight of the larger model but actually found it beneficial in getting a steady image. In the limited environment that I had to sample them I could not really check for CA but if they are better than the FLs then that really says something to me about them. I have found one or two models that were comparable but haven't found one that bettered them.

I would also suggest checking out the Meopta. It is certainly worth a look but I would not necessarily rank it any higher than the non-ED/FL versions of the others.

"I continue to be genuinely amazed that Better View Desired has them rated at Reference Standard level." WE must remember this was in the $800.00 to $1000.00 range not the Open or Alpha class. Quite a difference there.

Dennis

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by macs

I would also add to your short list Kowa 8.5x44 XD as it has ED glass and CA suppresion is, IMO, better than in Zeiss and Leica.

I have read quite a few articles about the Kowa's being mechanically inferior to the top alphas. Here is one on Bird Forum:
"I've had a pair of the 10.5x44 Kowas for 9 months. Almost immediately, though optically excellent, I found them very (too) heavy - I'm over 6 feet tall and no lightweight! After a morning's birding my back and neck were aching. Using them almost daily, I soon found that the focussing mechanism became very impreciseas if it had become worn very quickly, making it difficult to "find" some birds, particularly those moving rapidly. By the time the binoculars were in focus, the bird had often gone. Depth of field on the 10.5x44s is also fairly poor. Another mechanical fault which has arisen more recently, again adding to the difficulty of locating birds, is that the rotating eye cup on the left eyepiece now winds itself down as it rubs against my jacket. This means that, at times and without my being aware, one eyepice is correctly set while the other isn't and has to be repositioned. Once again, birds are missed by the time this has been done and the bins focussed. I'm hoping that these problems will be covered by warranty but, overall, I wouldn't recommend these Kowas. There's plenty of room for improvement,particularly on wight and durability."

Dennis

[ronh]

Macs,
I appreciate your opinion on the color performance of the Kowa. I am a new Zeiss FL user, and am naturally fascinated with the improvement compared to non-ED type glass.

But to get the best color-free performance out of the Zeiss still requires some skill, in that both the eye and the object must be well centered. Off axis, there is still considerable color fringing. Perhaps the saving grace is you have to center the object well to get in the sweet spot anyhow! While off axis aberration is not a big deal, the required care in use might be improved, it seems. I love my Zeiss, but it is after all a first generation effort of this type.
Ron

[kristoffer]

the kowa seems like very good glas but with not as good build. Shame, kowa seem to be quite cutting edge when it comes to optics. Both for scopes and bins.

[macs]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

I have read quite a few articles about the Kowa's being mechanically inferior to the top alphas. Here is one on Bird Forum:
"I've had a pair of the 10.5x44 Kowas for 9 months. Almost immediately, though optically excellent, I found them very (too) heavy - I'm over 6 feet tall and no lightweight! After a morning's birding my back and neck were aching. Using them almost daily, I soon found that the focussing mechanism became very impreciseas if it had become worn very quickly, making it difficult to "find" some birds, particularly those moving rapidly. By the time the binoculars were in focus, the bird had often gone. Depth of field on the 10.5x44s is also fairly poor. Another mechanical fault which has arisen more recently, again adding to the difficulty of locating birds, is that the rotating eye cup on the left eyepiece now winds itself down as it rubs against my jacket. This means that, at times and without my being aware, one eyepice is correctly set while the other isn't and has to be repositioned. Once again, birds are missed by the time this has been done and the bins focussed. I'm hoping that these problems will be covered by warranty but, overall, I wouldn't recommend these Kowas. There's plenty of room for improvement,particularly on wight and durability."

Dennis

Dennis,
That's the only negative comment I found on the net, all other (not many) were positive. I hope there will be more. Surely, it's no good if focusing mechanism becomes worn after several months of use...
Can you provide links to those articles you mention?

Regards,

Maciek

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by macs

Dennis,
That's the only negative comment I found on the net, all other (not many) were positive. I hope there will be more. Surely, it's no good if focusing mechanism becomes worn after several months of use...
Can you provide links to those articles you mention?

Regards,

Maciek

Sure it's right here on Bird Forum and you can probably PM them and discuss the problems they talked about.

http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/sho...hp/product/240

Dennis

[macs]

Hi Dennis,
I have read this review many times, the other one is by Renze de Vries and it's very favourable. You said 'I have read quite a few articles about the Kowa's being mechanically inferior to the top alphas.' so I was curious what the other opinions were like, because I tried hard to find as many users review as possible, and there isn't much there on the net about the Kowa.

Optics-wise, the Kowa 8.5x44 XD is very, very good, especially when it comes to CA suppression, Unfortunately, I can see CA quite easily, being accustomed to fantastic image in my Nikon 8x32 SE. When I said that Kowa was better in that mater than Zeiss FL and Leica HD I meant that the CA was absent in the centre of the FOV (just like in Zeiss and Leica) but it was less prominent off-centre which is quite impressive, at least for me.

Regards,

Maciek

[jurek]

There must be like 10 threads already, all prefering Zeiss FL above Leica Fl above Swarowski, and the rest are simply second league.

I am surprised why these Leupolds keep popping up like proverbial frog which wanted to be shoed with racehorses. We have a viral marketer here?

Then there is only one question - do you want to spend $300 or so extra and get the top possible bins for a lifetime, or $300 less and get 2nd class bins?

[FrankD]

Then there is only one question - do you want to spend $300 or so extra and get the top possible bins for a lifetime, or $300 less and get 2nd class bins?

I am curious. Which two specific models are you comparing here when you make this statement?

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by macs

Hi Dennis,
I have read this review many times, the other one is by Renze de Vries and it's very favourable. You said 'I have read quite a few articles about the Kowa's being mechanically inferior to the top alphas.' so I was curious what the other opinions were like, because I tried hard to find as many users review as possible, and there isn't much there on the net about the Kowa.

Optics-wise, the Kowa 8.5x44 XD is very, very good, especially when it comes to CA suppression, Unfortunately, I can see CA quite easily, being accustomed to fantastic image in my Nikon 8x32 SE. When I said that Kowa was better in that mater than Zeiss FL and Leica HD I meant that the CA was absent in the centre of the FOV (just like in Zeiss and Leica) but it was less prominent off-centre which is quite impressive, at least for me.

Regards,

Maciek

There is no way a Kowa 8.5 x44 XD is even close to the top alphas. Mechanically or optically. I have looked and compared them and they are definitely not alpha quality. Here is another review from Birdwatching.com and they ranked them 10th out of twelve binoculars and remarked they had inconsistencies in focus tension. Again they are a pretty good binocular but NOT alpha quality.They rated the Bushnell Elite above them. Here is the main chart:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...hart_main.html

and here is the review of them:

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/2...esis_2008.html

Dennis

[RJM]

I can give the benefit of the doubt on the Kowa mechanics and ergonomics (mainly a weight issue). But optically they could certainly be "alphas" perhaps giving up only a few degrees in FoV to Zeiss and Swaro. With the release of the Genesis 33 series, the mechanical/ergonomic shortcomings have been addressed.

No matter, I still think the best birding bino optically is the Canon 10x42IS L but its ergonomics don't agree with mine so I am stuck with the Nikon 8x30 EII for now.

cheers,
Rick

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by RJM

I can give the benefit of the doubt on the Kowa mechanics and ergonomics (mainly a weight issue). But optically they could certainly be "alphas" perhaps giving up only a few degrees in FoV to Zeiss and Swaro. With the release of the Genesis 33 series, the mechanical/ergonomic shortcomings have been addressed.

No matter, I still think the best birding bino optically is the Canon 10x42IS L but its ergonomics don't agree with mine so I am stuck with the Nikon 8x30 EII for now.

cheers,
Rick

The Kowa's optics are nowwhere near Zeiss, Swarovski, or Leica's nor are the mechanicals so they are not Alpha. A $700.00 Vortex Razor is a better binocular than a Kowa! Is the Vortex Alpha? No, then neither is the Kowa. I really think their is some factory reps on Bird Forum for Leupold and Kowa. Neither is alpha but their is some people that will defend them to the end. Be careful of the advice you get on Bird Forum. It is often times biased.

Dennis

[RJM]

In this thread Dennis asked "What is an alpha binocular?"

I replied:
MY DEFINITION would be "the flagship models of the top brand optics manufactures with patented technologies AND a worldwide distribution."

And Dennis responded, "I agree with that."

Clearly the Kowa Genesis represents the Kowa flagship model, ergo it must be an alpha by MY DEFINITION.

BR is populated by known Zeiss, Leica, Swaro and Opticron reps. But as far as I know, the Japanese OEMs are not represented. Certainly not by me! But I agree one should read reviews from sites like Birdwatching.com with skepticism since they are also in the biz of selling birding optics. What real business person wouldn't push their highest margin products?

cheers,
Rick

[Steve C]

Since Kowa has gotten into the discussion, I add this review link fromHolger Merlitz.

http://www.holgermerlitz.de/kowa85x44.html

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by RJM

In this thread Dennis asked "What is an alpha binocular?"

I replied:
MY DEFINITION would be "the flagship models of the top brand optics manufactures with patented technologies AND a worldwide distribution."

And Dennis responded, "I agree with that."

Clearly the Kowa Genesis represents the Kowa flagship model, ergo it must be an alpha by MY DEFINITION.


"BR is populated by known Zeiss, Leica, Swaro and Opticron reps. But as far as I know, the Japanese OEMs are not represented. Certainly not by me! But I agree one should read reviews from sites like Birdwatching.com with skepticism since they are also in the biz of selling birding optics. What real business person wouldn't push their highest margin products?

cheers,
Rick

MY DEFINITION would be "the flagship models of the top brand optics manufactures with patented technologies AND a worldwide distribution."

And Dennis responded, "I agree with that."

I do agree with that but I don't consider Kowa a top brand optics manufacturer hence not an alpha.

Dennis

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by RJM

In this thread Dennis asked "What is an alpha binocular?"

I replied:
MY DEFINITION would be "the flagship models of the top brand optics manufactures with patented technologies AND a worldwide distribution."

And Dennis responded, "I agree with that."

Clearly the Kowa Genesis represents the Kowa flagship model, ergo it must be an alpha by MY DEFINITION.

BR is populated by known Zeiss, Leica, Swaro and Opticron reps. But as far as I know, the Japanese OEMs are not represented. Certainly not by me! But I agree one should read reviews from sites like Birdwatching.com with skepticism since they are also in the biz of selling birding optics. What real business person wouldn't push their highest margin products?

cheers,
Rick

I pretty much agree with Birdwatching.coms reviews based on actual experience so I think in my mind they are pretty valid.

Dennis

[RJM]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

MY DEFINITION would be "the flagship models of the top brand optics manufactures with patented technologies AND a worldwide distribution."

And Dennis responded, "I agree with that."

I do agree with that but I don't consider Kowa a top brand optics manufacturer hence not an alpha.

Dennis

So you say Kowa, the company that basically invented the modern fieldscope and currently manufacturing the world's best fieldscope according to many reviews, is somehow incapable of making a worldclass binocular? Well I don't think so.

Rick